176 replies to this topic

[Aries13]

In my other post....


Just want to chime in on the M4 Sherman. First of it was designed during  a time when the US military was ranked 27th in the world. It was NOT I  repeat NOT designed as a tank killer. It was designed to support  infantry and take out machine gun nest or bunkers. Once the Americans  realized that the Germans designed there tanks to take out other tanks,  they were caught off guard. They then rushed the development of the  "Tank Destroyer " type of vehicle.  A fast vehicle "60Mph" with at least  a 76MM anti tank gun, during one engagement during the battle of the  bulge 8 M-18 Hellcats fought 40 Panthers, at the end 3 M-18 were  destroyed to 19 Panthers. These vehicles if they are designed correctly  for the game will be as fast as the fastest light tank, armored as a mid  range medium and carries at least a 76mm gun, that can punch through  the front armor of a Panther. So people give the Sherman a break it was  just not designed to fight other tanks especially the monsters the  Germans put out on the field. But by shear numbers it did HELP win WWII, American units could always have a multiple tanks in support of an attack anywhere in the field, something the Germans just could not do.

[Magick]

xthetenth, on May 15 2011 - 05:46, said:

[citation needed]

Sherman Engineering Disaster

Quote:
"In one unit they sent 18 of these newly crewed tanks into combat, and in the first twenty minutes 17 of them were lost..."

An actual Tank Gunner told a general, when asked why they couldn't take out German tanks:
"General, in order to knock out a German tank, I have to get within 600 yards and catch them in the flank (on the side.) They can take us out at 2000 yards and head on..."

The most telling though is:
"The only way our tanks could defeat their tanks, was if we could run around behind them and shoot them in the rear end where there wasn't much armor. We did that, but typically it would take five tanks being blown up before the sixth one got around to shoot the German tank in the back.  The mathematics weren't good.."

http://youtu.be/gEeQPUp5VTY

[FaustianQ]

Magick, on May 17 2011 - 13:11, said:

Sherman Engineering Disaster

Quote:
"In one unit they sent 18 of these newly crewed tanks into combat, and in the first twenty minutes 17 of them were lost..."

An actual Tank Gunner told a general, when asked why they couldn't take out German tanks:
"General, in order to knock out a German tank, I have to get within 600 yards and catch them in the flank (on the side.) They can take us out at 2000 yards and head on..."

The most telling though is:
"The only way our tanks could defeat their tanks, was if we could run around behind them and shoot them in the rear end where there wasn't much armor. We did that, but typically it would take five tanks being blown up before the sixth one got around to shoot the German tank in the back.  The mathematics weren't good.."

http://youtu.be/gEeQPUp5VTY

Except there is no documented or statistical evidence to back up the 5:1 ratio.

[Dirg]

FaustianQ, on May 17 2011 - 14:48, said:

Except there is no documented or statistical evidence to back up the 5:1 ratio.

Someone once did some math based on those claims and it came out that every Sherman lost in battle had to have died to a Tiger and done so twice. I forget exactly but it was amusing.

[xthetenth]

Magick, on May 17 2011 - 13:11, said:

Sherman Engineering Disaster

Quote:
"In one unit they sent 18 of these newly crewed tanks into combat, and in the first twenty minutes 17 of them were lost..."

An actual Tank Gunner told a general, when asked why they couldn't take out German tanks:
"General, in order to knock out a German tank, I have to get within 600 yards and catch them in the flank (on the side.) They can take us out at 2000 yards and head on..."

The most telling though is:
"The only way our tanks could defeat their tanks, was if we could run around behind them and shoot them in the rear end where there wasn't much armor. We did that, but typically it would take five tanks being blown up before the sixth one got around to shoot the German tank in the back.  The mathematics weren't good.."

http://youtu.be/gEeQPUp5VTY

Ahhh, a documentary. The thing about documentaries is that nearly all of them try to ignore that the plural of anecdote is not data. In this case it also ignores nearly everything else and focuses on one specific issue. How the Sherman fared against Tigers and Panthers has little to no bearing on how it fared against StuGs, Panzer IVs, AT guns (a major killer of tanks), HEAT rockets, and AT mines. Against StuGs and Pz 4s, it would only get a small decrease in the range at which they can kill the Sherman. The second consideration is what changes this would make to the Sherman. It would make it the Pershing, a much more expensive tank. It would also need the production lines be basically restarted and a reasonably long gape in production endured. In return it makes a serious gain in capability against half the tanks, and a decent gain against the other half, the very numerous TDs and AT guns. That sounds great.

There are a few things though. You're making the tank much more expensive. That means that even when they start being built in bulk they aren't going to be as numerous. You're also making the tank heavier. Later marks of Sherman were heavy enough that they were at the very limit of what could be carried on a ship made in civilian shipyards with the technique and equipment present. So now to get your LSTs they're going to be a lot more expensive and coming out of the production capacity for such lovely things as destroyer escorts, destroyers and the like. Congratulations, because of this change, some more sailors will die, and supplies will be a little bit tighter. In addition, due to the lower numbers of tanks, direct tank support for small engagements won't be nearly as forthcoming, and a lot more strongpoints will have to be taken the old-fashioned way. Unfortunately the old-fashioned way involves a whole lot of poor bastards with rifles dying. So yeah, you save some tank crewmen, but don't even reduce a lot of major causes of tank kills at the cost of a heap of infantry. This isn't a positive change.

The Sherman was a design constrained by industrial realities carried on because of industrial realities which used the available fruits of US industry to the utmost to provide a tank that was capable against most of its opponents, allowed the crew to get the most out of it and most importantly was there to support the infantry. The T-34 was missing the second although it did get better later in the war, and the Pz 4 was missing the third. The Sherman, despite having a direct lineage in its design back to the M2 medium, was the last and best of the early war medium designs. It wasn't necessarily a match for heavy mediums like the Panther, but when you consider what the Germans sacrificed to get those and some of the issues they had with reliability, it gets even worse when we get down to which was there to actually fight and support the infantry. It was superlative in support of the infantry, and perfectly capable against tanks when needed.

I got beaten to the statistics bit, and this is long enough anyway.

[Joe_Dracos]

sigh.....

For the last time, the Sherman's design was not based on ship design (or vise versa). If old tramp steamers could carry Churchill tanks then the new Liberty ships could carry heavier tanks without a problem. These ships carried tanks, aircraft and even heavy machinery for other ships that were under construction (like engines). The weight and shape of a tank is inconsequential compared to some of the things they actually carried.

[Magick]

FaustianQ, on May 17 2011 - 14:48, said:

Except there is no documented or statistical evidence to back up the 5:1 ratio.

According to Jentz (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.), "The Tiger's armor was invulnerable to attack from most tank guns firing normal armor-piercing shells or shot at ranges over 800 meters, including the American 75 mm and the Russian 76 mm. It is obvious that the 17-pdr. firing normal APCBC rounds could defeat the frontal armor of the Tiger I at most combat ranges for tank vs. tank actions in Europe. However, by 23 June 1944, only 109 Shermans with 17-pdrs. had landed in France along with six replacements. By the end of the war, on 5 May 1945, the British 21st Army Group possessed 1,235 Sherman tanks with 17-pdrs., while the remaining 1,915 Sherman tanks were all equipped with the 75 mm M3 gun". Below, three more tables from the same source (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.), that show clearly the tactical superiority the Tiger I had over its contemporary Penetration Table 01: Cromwell, Churchill.
  
There should be a snazzy table here documenting penetrations versus various armors. However I couldn't get it to work. Go to the site I quoted to read it.  (Magick)

The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes"  (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).

It was said that it took at least five American M4 Sherman medium tanks to knock out a cornered Tiger. Whether it is fact or hearsay was not confirmed - however, it's interesting to note that according to the kill/losses achived by the Tiger battalions, the overall ratio was 5.74 to 1 (WILBECK, Christopher W., op cit).

http://fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

There's your documented statistica evidence. The overall ratio is recorded as 5.74 to 1.

EDIT: I'm cleaning up the tables. Check back when I get them fixed.

[xthetenth]

Joe_Dracos, on May 17 2011 - 18:37, said:

sigh.....

For the last time, the Sherman's design was not based on ship design (or vise versa). If old tramp steamers could carry Churchill tanks then the new Liberty ships could carry heavier tanks without a problem. These ships carried tanks, aircraft and even heavy machinery for other ships that were under construction (like engines). The weight and shape of a tank is inconsequential compared to some of the things they actually carried.

I'm not talking about the Liberty ships. I'm talking about the mass produced landing ships that needed to make significant concessions to being able to beach and offload. But I'll give up on it until I can find my sources for the particulars of that construction (and for the bit I remember about a LCT®'s rockets being accidentally fit to a ship not built to the same standards and capsizing.

[anti14]

i think the panzer 4 was a far better vehicle then the m4 sherman. the panzer 4 had a high velocity long 75mm(from 1942) gun that was better then the gun of the sherman.also the quality of german steel was far better then the american mass produced stuff. comparing a sherman to a panther is just stupid. sherman is an early war medium tank. panther was available in great numbers only in 1944-1945.it was a late war heavy  tank.the americans and the allies saw the panther as an heavy tank because the weight class of the British and Americans was different from that of the Germans a tank above 40 ton was ranked as an heavy tank in the eyes of the british and americans. and the germans classified there tanks only as heavy if they where above 50 tons. so actually the panther was an heavy tank for the americans.back on topic, the only advantage the m4 sherman had above the panzer 4 was that it was more easy to produce. the panzer 4 was better in fire power. in armor protection and a very big advantage was that the panzer 4 had a lot bigger chance of hitting a sherman from long distance because of the better accuracy it had. the germans created the best accuracy systems in the war. the js-2 was more a response to the panther then it was for the tiger 1 and tiger 2. the gun of the js-2 was only for close range strikes between a distance of 500-1000. meters while the german  guns where good at distances of almost 3km! the germans maded the best tanks of the freaking war. the only thing was that those tanks where to difficult to produce. you cant deny that the german tanks where the best
but it wasnt even the tanks who where soo good it was the crew. the germans had the best tank crews of the war never in the war there where tank aces like michael wittman and kurt knispel combined with there skill and machines they where able to do imposible things. things which the american tanks wherent or ever been able to do.

[_Freddy_]

anti14, on Mar 26 2012 - 10:35, said:

i think the panzer 4 was a far better vehicle then the m4 sherman. the panzer 4 had a high velocity long 75mm(from 1942) gun that was better then the gun of the sherman.also the quality of german steel was far better then the american mass produced stuff.**

**the only advantage the m4 sherman had above the panzer 4 was that it was more easy to produce. the panzer 4 was better in fire power. in armor protection and a very big advantage was that the panzer 4 had a lot bigger chance of hitting a sherman from long distance because of the better accuracy it had. the germans created the best accuracy systems in the war. the js-2 was more a response to the panther then it was for the tiger 1 and tiger 2. the gun of the js-2 was only for close range strikes between a distance of 500-1000. meters while the german  guns where good at distances of almost 3km! the germans maded the best tanks of the freaking war. the only thing was that those tanks where to difficult to produce. you cant deny that the german tanks where the best
but it wasnt even the tanks who where soo good it was the crew. the germans had the best tank crews of the war never in the war there where tank aces like michael wittman and kurt knispel combined with there skill and machines they where able to do imposible things. things which the american tanks wherent or ever been able to do.

The Sherman and the Panzer IV were pretty much equivalent, both could knock each other out at combat ranges and the Sherman actually had thicker frontal armour than the Panzer IV (52mm sloped versus 80mm flat), side armour was thicker on the Sherman
The Panzer IV was made cheaper as the war went on so reducing its effectiveness (power traverse removed, etc), it was an old prewar design that could no longer be upgraded whereas the Sherman could (Firefly, M4A3E2 Jumbo, etc).

German crews training and capability was on the decline as they did not have the luxury of rotating crews and training them fully. The Germans had a severe manpower deficiency by 1943 which only got worse. Previously discharged personnel (unfit for duty) were recalled and posted to special Battalions.

Which German tanks were the best and when, you have to put a sweeping statement like that into context. Also what were they the best at?

[dpworldoftanks]

Alright fine, the German's had their Panzer IVs, Panzer Vs (Panthers) and Panzer VIs (Tigers) but so what! The Russian's produced about 80,000 T-34s and the American's produced about 80,000 Shermans! The Germans only had 8,000 PZIVs produced, 6,000 Panthers and roughly 2,000 Tigers.

This is a 160,000 to 16,000 difference. That's ten tanks for every one tank! It doesn't matter if you need 4 tanks to kill one because you'd still win. Not to mention, the M4's and T-34's were easy to take care of but the Tigers and Panthers kept on catching fire or breaking down.

Statistically, they were the better tank but Germany: a) couldn't produce enough and b)didn't have enough oil produced to fuel all of them. It's the reason Russian owned Germany in World War II, the German's had well-trained soldiers, Russia had 2 million of them.

Not to mention, Germany had to fight two fronts with their 16,000 tanks but America only had to concentrate on their one front with their 80,000 and Russia only had to concentrate on their front with their 80,000. As well, Britain helped with their Matildas, Valentines, Churchills and so on to both fronts.

[Mechanize]

dpworldoftanks, on Apr 08 2012 - 14:57, said:

Alright fine, the German's had their Panzer IVs, Panzer Vs (Panthers) and Panzer VIs (Tigers) but so what! The Russian's produced about 80,000 T-34s and the American's produced about 80,000 Shermans! The Germans only had 8,000 PZIVs produced, 6,000 Panthers and roughly 2,000 Tigers.

Hey good point! Except for the fact that the production totals were 50,000 Shermans and and 55,000 T34s, Not all of which even saw combat and 9,000 PZIV's not to mention all the other AFVs like Stugs which you decided not to mention.

Quote

This is a 160,000 to 16,000 difference. That's ten tanks for every one tank! It doesn't matter if you need 4 tanks to kill one because you'd still win. Not to mention, the M4's and T-34's were easy to take care of but the Tigers and Panthers kept on catching fire or breaking down.

I guess It's 160,000 if you want to count being off by a factor of 55,000, but hey, small difference right?

And It's almost like the designers of the M4 and T34 had the foresight to realize a vehicle that's easily mass produced and is highly dependable and easy to repair on the field tends to do better then a much smaller amount of tanks that will break down and be near impossible and time consuming to run operationally again due to weight issues and over engineered designs, hmmmm.... wonder why that would make a difference?

Quote

Statistically, they were the better tank but Germany: a) couldn't produce enough and b)didn't have enough oil produced to fuel all of them. It's the reason Russian owned Germany in World War II, the German's had well-trained soldiers, Russia had 2 million of them.

It's almost as if death counts for the Soviet Union were offset by the high amount of civilian deaths the Soviet Union faced that everyone loves to lump in as military deaths would be important here, aswell as knowing the actual populations and armed forces sizes of said countries circa 1939-1945 would be important, but I guess not.

Quote

Not to mention, Germany had to fight two fronts with their 16,000 tanks but America only had to concentrate on their one front with their 80,000 and Russia only had to concentrate on their front with their 80,000. As well, Britain helped with their Matildas, Valentines, Churchills and so on to both fronts.

Yeah, because clearly the US only had to focus on one front, wait, what's that? something about a nation called "Japan"? Hold on let me look into this, I'm sure It's nothing though, much like those 55,000 phantom tanks since apparently checking numbers before making a post isn't important.

Also Germany was on the run from the Soviet Union before the Normandy landings, their loss at Kursk at effectively shut down any chance they had at winning on the eastern front and they were in a steady retreat back to Germany basically the entire duration afterwards, But keep on clamoring to the whole 2 fronts thing... While ignoring the Pacific front.

[lpmaster]

The M4 was a medium tank with a low velocity 75mm. Later in the war the brits  started using the firefly, with a high velocity 75mm.  The M26 pershing sealed the fate of the germans. The M4 was not designed to take on tigers, much less mice.

[_Freddy_]

lpmaster, on Apr 21 2012 - 22:00, said:

The M4 was a medium tank with a low velocity 75mm. Later in the war the brits  started using the firefly, with a high velocity 75mm.  The M26 pershing sealed the fate of the germans. The M4 was not designed to take on tigers, much less mice.

You seem to have that a bit wrong

The Sherman was armed with a 75mm Medium Velocity gun, a 76mm High Velocity Gun, 105mm Low Velocity Howitzer and for the Brits a 17pdr High Velocity gun.

The 76mm was designed to deal with the Tigers and Panthers but they made a tadge of a mistake in the numbers they expected to face and the penetration ability of the gun.

The M26 came too late and too few to seal the Germans fate, it had been sealed along time before the first set track in Europe (not to mention it had a few reliability issues which led to it being rebuilt as the M46 Patton).

[lpmaster]

_Freddy_, on Apr 22 2012 - 11:31, said:

You seem to have that a bit wrong

The Sherman was armed with a 75mm Medium Velocity gun, a 76mm High Velocity Gun, 105mm Low Velocity Howitzer and for the Brits a 17pdr High Velocity gun.

The 76mm was designed to deal with the Tigers and
Panthers but they made a tadge of a mistake in the
numbers they expected to face and the penetration ability of
the gun.

The M26 came too late and too few to seal the Germans fate, it had been sealed along time before the first set track in Europe (not to mention it had a few reliability issues
which led to it being rebuilt as the M46 Patton).

WTH is wrong with my books? Jezus bejezus I hate that book now... Your explanation does make sense.

[wokelly]

Slacker, on Mar 01 2011 - 23:02, said:

If you were to look at the War in Europe as a whole (British Commonwealth, American, and Soviet forces), the German armed forces inflicted a 2:1 kill ratio. They were outnumbered 3.5:1.

In what world? According to the Germans own recalculated losses recalculated in January 1945 from Dekade reports, losses in the ETO from June 1944 to October 31st 1944 were 483,742 (only Heer and Waffen SS). For the same period, just US forces (all brances including aircrew, navy etc), they lost 262,635. British and CW come out to around 100,000+ (83,000 until 1st September). Also take into account the Germans had a stricter definition of a wounded man so their losses will be about 10-30% (depending on who you ask, it is a favorite debate among WWI historians who argue over Haigs attrition strategy) lower than allied casualty figures (Germans did not count wounded who required medical attention but returned to duty that same day, allies did).

That is NOT a 2:1 ratio and at no point during the ETO were the Germans inflicting those type of losses on a grand scale (maybe certain tactical battles but there are tactical battles were the Allies did the same). Heck, even Hurtgen Forest, which is considered a unnecessary slaughter of US troops, saw the Germans achieve maybe a 1.5/1 casualty ratio. Much like Allied tank losses compared to German losses, there is no basis for the alleged massively superior kill/death ratio wehrmacht fanboys push around. The numbers simply do not add up.

Slacker, on Mar 02 2011 - 22:30, said:

MG 42 > Entire american infantry squad

It had a firing rate up to 1500 rounds per min. They were the main firepower of a german infantry force not the rifles the rifles are just to protect the machine gun. Where as the americans used machine guns to protect the rifles.

And what is often not said is the German doctrine did not work. The lone MG42 could not in practice (due to ammo constraints and practical limitations) provide enough firepower in enough directions to defeat the enemy. This is why you see increased allocation of SMGs, semi-autos, and the creation of the STG assault rifle by the Germans as the war goes on. The other men in the infantry squad much be able to provide decent firepower. The lone LMG can not route dug in enemies out from buildings, they can not clear closed country and forests. This is the basis of modern day infantry squads, a heavy duty LMG to provide a base of fire but the other riflemen with assault rifes are not just there to provide ammo, they are expected to generate lots of firepower themselves.

The MG42 was a good gun but it on its own could not provide adequate firepower. In reality it did not generate firepower equal to its cyclic rate of fire. On average its output was about 150 rounds per minute (in the LMG form), between barrel changes and the need to conserve the ammo the squad was carrying. That is not to say it could not, on a dime, generate enormous firepower, but that was not something it could do constantly. NO nation has a squad level LMG with that rof (1200 to 1500). Even the MG3 capped out at under 1200 rpm (a MG42 that did 1200 rpm was considered slow, it was in reality closer to 1500 than to 1200), and its soon to enter service replacement fires around 850rpm. Copies of the MG3 in other nations service do not fire about 1000 rpm. 1200-1500 rpm was excessive. Not something MG42 fanboys will admit, but it was overkill to the point of being detrimental with poorly trained gunners who could not keep their wits about them and their sustained rate of fire at the 150rpm drilled into them in training. The MG34 frankly had it right with about 900rpm. That is where most nations (Germany soon as well) have their squad and platoon level LMGs at.

Slacker, on Mar 03 2011 - 21:39, said:

All and all the MG 42 is far superior just look at modern day is the .30 still used? No
Is the MG 3? Yes

There is a reason for this.

There is also a reason there are FAR more nations using squad level LMGs with lower rof's and why the Germans themselves are replacing the MG3 with a LMG that shoots about half of what the MG42 did.

The MG42 was good because it was:

A)Belt fed
B)Man portable
c)Multi-purpose

The Rate of Fire was not a significant benefit except in the HMG role, where it had ample ammo supply and ample barrels to sustain a rate of fire comparable to warter-cooled MGs despite being air-cooled and a hell of a lot more portable. A big advantage was that the HMG MG42 They could be used offensively (hence why the Germans had so many HMGs in their battalions), where as Allied watercooled HMGs were largely defensive. But in the standard squad role, the 150 rpm sustained fire was not significantly more than say the 95 rpm sustained fire of the Bren.

Joe_Dracos, on Apr 12 2011 - 05:17, said:

Ah yes, another interesting discussion.

Lets start out with the first thing I noticed.

The 17 pounder is not a better gun the the 88mm ATG that the Tiger uses. It is better then the 88mm Flak 18.

17pdr is a better AT weapon, better penetration and a better subcailber round than was issued to the Tiger (APDS vs APCR). 17pdr has an inferior HE shell.

Quote

The M4 in comparison to other WWII MEDIUM tanks is a hunk of junk. However it was the best vehicle (up until the Comet) available to the Western allies and thus it is what was utilized.

The M4 was quite capable of defeating the Mark IV. I can dig up dozens of examples of Shermans beating up on Mark IVs (and Panthers at that). The fact it was ONLY in 1944 that concerns about the Sherman's ability to defeat German tanks, despite the fact it had been in service for about 1.5 years, indicates it was up to the task asked of it against German mediums it encountered in North Africa, Sicily and Italy.

Quote

If have your destroyed tanks Burned it is an unusually high occurence. AT in WWII are simple solid slugs. Sabot, squash head, composite rigid, ect were not common. Especially in vehicles that have wet ammo racks (I am not sure how many of the variants had this).

Untrue, WWII shells for the US and Germany had explosive fillers and were fuzed. Only the British used solid shot, and frankly Geramn tanks burned quite often despite that. 60% of Panthers and 80% of Mark IVs surveyed in the British sector around Caen burned when knocked out. Fact is, most tanks burned in WWII. Many tanks today burn, especially Soviet designs in service with Arab countries.

Quote

The slopped armour on the Sherman was not meant to improve armour thickness when it was designed. Its just one of those happy coincidences that occure from time to time. The sides and rear would have sloped armour as well (the more vulnerable areas).

Untrue. If the hull armour was not intended to be thickened by the slope it surely would have been more in line with the thickness of the turret armour. The Shermans front turret armour was about 75mm thick (varies on the mark and the mantlet). You would not make the hull only 51mm thick if you didn't expect the hull slope to help. Side armour was not sloped because that would affect the turret width which was almost as wide as the hull. The Sherman was kept a certain width for ease of transport (on rail and in ship). You either cut the turret width or make the tank wider. This is why the Panther was so wide.

Quote

I also agree that comparing an M4 to a tiger... or even a Panther is not appropriate. The heavier vehicle will always have the better gun and armour.

I actually disagree here. It may not be "fair", but these tanks did in fact fight each other in reality, so comparing them makes sense. It is not fair to say one tank sucked because you simply could not make a 33 ton tank like the Sherman equal to or better than a tank with 12 more tons worth of weight to play with, but it is not wrong to compare them as they did fight eachother.

Quote

I disagree about the "mantainability" as a superior combat quality though. Sure you can tow it back to the motor pool when an ATG round holes the damn thing, but the tank is still knocked out and will contribute nothing more to the battle. We're comparing tanks dirrectly here. It is a superior logistical quality however.

Maintainability is hugely important. It is not about what you have (to a degree) but how much you put into the field. Albert Speer visited German troops in Italy in late 1944, talked to them about what they wanted in tanks. In his own words:

"All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun. This desire by the troops corresponds with conditions that will develop in the future as a result of the drop in production capacity and of the fact that, because of a shortage of chrome, sufficient armor plate can't be produced to meet the increased production plans. Therefore, either the number of Panzers produced must be reduced or it will be necessary to reduce the thickness of the armor plate. In that case, the troops will unequivocally ask for a reduction of the armor thickness in order to increase the total number of Panzers produced.""

In short, the German troops preferred to have lots of tanks with good guns over few tanks with good guns and thicker armour. Having tanks that have low operational readiness doesn't help things at all.

Magick, on May 17 2011 - 22:17, said:

It was said that it took at least five American M4 Sherman medium tanks to knock out a cornered Tiger. Whether it is fact or hearsay was not confirmed - however, it's interesting to note that according to the kill/losses achived by the Tiger battalions, the overall ratio was 5.74 to 1 (WILBECK, Christopher W., op cit).

http://fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

There's your documented statistica evidence. The overall ratio is recorded as 5.74 to 1.

That is not statistical evidence, those are unit claims, which as with any claims are in excess of reality. There was no tank kill vetting process like aircrew had. German tank kill claims are unsubstantiated claims. Even the OKH took these with a grain of salt. In 1943, in order to get an accurate idea of ACTUAL Russian tank losses, they compiled Panzer unit tank claims and arbitrarily cut that number by 30%. In 1944, they increased that to 50% reduction.

That might even be generous. For example a number of western Luftwaffe ace's have "confirmed" kills in excess of 30% of what can "archivally" be attributed to them. You get a similar ratio for a number of western ace's. But if you have over-confirmation of kills in excess of reality, you can bet those kill claims are far in excess of reality.

Another flaw with the ratio, you are looking at permanent losses vs total allied losses. For example, a Tiger holed, with its crew entirely killed but recoved and reparable would not be counted as a loss. But an Allied tank knocked out by a tiger, its entire crew killed but reparable will be counted as a kill. It is apple and oranges.

Frankly I don't doubt the Tiger had a superior k/d, due to its armour and gun and being used mainly defensively for much of the war (and lots of them being on the eastern front where they had LOADs of targets). But in the west, I doubt they had anything like a 11, or 5 or even 3 k/d if you factored out overclaiming and make the qualifications of a loss and kill comparable (ie only total losses vs total losses). 2-3:1 seems plausable IMO, but I doubt we will ever know for sure.

[Tishr]

I think some of the dislike of the Sherman comes from us viewing it trough the lense of modern western tank design ideology which is much like the German's therefor there is the assumption that western tanks that followed something closer to the Soviet model must be clearly some way flawed. The Sherman like the T-34 was a suffecient easy to produce design designed for infantry support and to engage light to medium tanks and in those roles it served adequetly particularly at a time when the western allies particularly the united states valued personal less than they do now.
The Sherman was designed to capitalized on the much greater manpower resource the American's had access to and was deemed the most effecient design for combating Germany.

[The_Chieftain]

wokelly, on Apr 27 2012 - 07:21, said:

Untrue, WWII shells for the US and Germany had explosive fillers and were fuzed. Only the British used solid shot, and frankly Geramn tanks burned quite often despite that.

The commonly used US M79 projectile would like to have a word with you. As would all the HVAP ammunition. Any US round designated as "Shot" had no explosive filler.

Quote

Untrue. If the hull armour was not intended to be thickened by the slope it surely would have been more in line with the thickness of the turret armour. The Shermans front turret armour was about 75mm thick (varies on the mark and the mantlet). You would not make the hull only 51mm thick if you didn't expect the hull slope to help.

Sure you could. Firstly, most shots impact the turret, mainly because tankers try to go hull down. So you want to balance out the armor value on the hull so that it's enough to be still useful, whilst also allowing as much weight of armour as possible to be where the tank is most likely to receive the hit. Granted, however, the balance between hull and turret impact was only noticed part-way through the war.

[Antare]

Chief, how effective was the turret armor on the Sherman anyway?

[FaustianQ]

Antare, on May 10 2012 - 07:56, said:

Chief, how effective was the turret armor on the Sherman anyway?

Depends on which turret and when it was produced, early cast turrets were the worst, late model T23 turrets were the best and performed based on their listed thickness.